Re: [PATCH]

[David S. Miller]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / $B5HF#1QL@(B <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <Xine.LNX.4.44.0408052245380.20516-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:47:12 -0400 (EDT)), James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> 
> > > Would you be against a patch to cryptoapi to have access to a
> > > non-scatter-list set of calls?
> :
> > level.  Can you demonstrate a compelling need for raw access to the
> > algorithms via the API?
> 
> I would use them for
>  - Privacy Extensions (RFC3041) support
>  - upcoming TCP MD5 signature (RFC2385) support
> since I don't see the advantage(s) of sg for allocated memories there.

But here is the problem, it's going to be implemented as a scatter-
gather list on the stack to pass on to the actual crypto layer.

If you just blindly use this new interface, you may not be aware
of this overhead and thus not consider moving to sg-based methods.
This is what I want to avoid.

Yes, it is social engineering. :-)

I see nothing wrong with explicitly coding things out, as we do
now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/